Supreme Court Refuses To Stay HC Order Quashing TN Govt Decision To Use Temple Funds For Marriage Halls' Construction

The Supreme Court recently refused to stay the Madras High Court judgment which quashed a state government order granting permission for construction of marriage halls by utilizing funds of 5 different temples.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter and issued notice on the petition challenging the High Court order. The Court will be considering whether construction of marriage halls using temple funds is commercial in nature or not.

Questioning the state government's decision, the bench remarked that surplus funds of religious places like temples should not be used for construction of marriage halls, where dance, music and service of alcohol are likely to take place.

When the state government attempted to persuade the Court that marriages in temples of south India follow religious rituals, and there is no vulgar music/dance or service of alcohol involved, the bench asked as to why the surplus funds cannot be used for constructing charitable hospitals or educational institutions.

"Devotees do not offer their money to the temple for the purpose of setting up these marriage halls" the bench commented.

To recap, the Madras High Court quashed the state government order, observing that it was violative of provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 and the Rules and did not fall within the definition of “religious purpose”. It further noted that as per Section 66 of the HR & CE Act, surplus funds could not be diverted for commercial or profit making ventures but must be confined to religious or charitable purpose.

The Court said that Hindu marriages, though considered sacrament, was a union bound by contractual terms and hence could not be considered a religious purpose.

Perusing the government order, the Court observed that the marriage halls were not free of charge and were rented out on payment of fee. Thus, it opined that there was no charity in the object of the government order, and hence, it could not be said to be a religious purpose under the Act.

Highlighting that the scope of provision could not be expanded, the court further remarked that the movable and immovable properties, ornaments, jewels etc, donated by devotees/donors to the temple must be used by the temple only for religious purposes and not for any other common purpose. It was concluded that the state had no authority to divert the funds for any other purpose under the name of religion which would defeat the objective of the Act.

Aggrieved by the judgment, the present petition was filed through AoR B Karunakaran.

Case Title: THE JOINT COMMISSIONER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER ARULMIGHU DHANDAYUTHAPANI SWAMY TEMPLE PALANI. Versus RAMA RAVIKUMAR AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 26368-26369/2025 (and connected case)